Network Working Group Y. Zha
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational
Expires: April 2017
October 31, 2016
Deterministic Latency Network Framework
draft-zha-dln-framework-00
Abstract
More and more real time applications, such as VR gaming, high
frequency trading, Internet of vehicle, require accurate latency
guarantee or bound, during service provisioning. Providing End-to-
End latency guarantee across Internet is increasingly attractive
while challenging. The main problem with latency guarantee on
Internet is that packet scheduling is still best-effort, and
congestion that further introduces latency uncertainty cannot be
avoided. This document presents a way of describing latency
information that mostly rely on the congestion management such as
queue scheduling, and a framework to use such information to
guarantee End-to-End latency.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Zha Expires April 30 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document ............................3
3. End-to-End Latency Guarantee Problem .........................3
3.1. Current QoS framework ...................................4
3.2. Need of Modeling of Latency .............................5
3.3. Need of Measurement of Flow Latency .....................6
4. Latency Information Modeling and Interface Framework .........7
4.1. Latency Aware PHB .......................................7
4.2. Latency Aware Interface .................................9
5. Security Considerations ......................................9
6. IANA Considerations ..........................................9
7. Acknowledgments ..............................................9
8. References ...................................................9
8.1. Normative References ....................................9
8.2. Informative References .................................10
1. Introduction
Latency sensitive applications, such as VR gaming, high frequency
trading, Internet of vehicle, have become more and more popular.
These applications often require a guaranteed or bounded End-to-
End packet transmission latency. For example, the End-to-End
latency bounds of and VR gaming are 1 millisecond and 5
millisecond corresponding. Hence, mechanism achieving End-to-End
latency guarantee or bound for latency sensitive applications is
highly desirable [I-D.liu-dln-use-cases].
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
The well-known End-to-End QoS (Quality of Service) model is
DiffServ (Differentiated Service) [RFC2474] that defines PHB (Per
Hop Behavior) to provide different, relative service levels (or
priority) for different packets. However, one key factor for
latency during packet transmission is congestion, and congestion
management such as packet queue scheduling further introduces
latency uncertainty. DiffServ which only cares about providing
differentiated service based on packet priority is not sufficient
for the application that requires guaranteed End-to-End latency.
Therefore, mechanism is desirable that can model the packet queue
scheduling latency, then give the latency guarantee or bound of
certain packet flow in each network node. It is also useful to
define interface to expose such latency information to the upper
level of the network to facilitate End-to-End latency guaranteed
or bounded service.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to
be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.
3. End-to-End Latency Guarantee Problem
End-to-End latency is one of the most important metrics of network
service provisioning. Latency sensitive service has become the
main driving force of deterministic low latency network, which
requires End-to-End latency guarantee or bound. Unlike relative
low latency transport, End-to-End guaranteed or bounded latency
requires the knowledge of the worst latency performance across the
network, and the capability of latency guarantee in each network
node. Current packet network is mainly best-effort, so End-to-End
latency guarantee or bound is still difficult to achieve.
The key issue is that latency guarantee requires latency
description, or the capability of the network device, in order to
further provide latency guarantee for certain traffic flow. In
this section, the challenge of End-to-End latency guarantee, as
well as the need of latency description for the network device is
presented.
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
3.1. Current QoS framework
End-to-End QoS provisioning is the typical approach today to
provide better performance including latency, for the latency
sensitive services. DiffServ [RFC2474] is a well-known QoS
mechanism to provide differentiated service quality to different
classes of traffic flow. DiffServ model is shown in Figure 1.
+-------+
| |------------+
+-->| Meter | |
| | |-+ |
| +-------+ | |
| V V
+------------+ +--------+ +---------+ +-----------+
| | | | | Shaper/ | | |
Packets =>| Classifier |=>| Marker |=>| Dropper |=>| Scheduler |=>
| | | | | | | |
+------------+ +--------+ +---------+ |-----------+
Figure 1 - DiffServ Model
For classifiers, DiffServ uses code-points to describe the service
level and drop level of packets. The service level and drop level
are essentially relative performance description (or priority) for
different classes of traffic flows. One key factor for latency is
congestion, and congestion management such as packet queue
scheduling further introduces latency uncertainty. A deterministic
latency performance (e.g. guarantee or bound) description is still
missing while necessary for latency sensitive traffic flows.
For traffic conditioning policies, PHBs of DiffServ are applied,
including BE (Best Effort), EF (Expedited Forwarding), CS (Class
Selector) and AF (Assured Forwarding). These PHBs are designed for
only a few flow aggregates, which imply that they cannot provide
differentiated services for a potentially large amount of latency
sensitive traffic flows with different latency requirements.
For service provisioning (or packet scheduling) policies, they are
decoupled from traffic conditioning policies and haven't received
much attention. For example, in the case where an EF packet
arrives at a network device that contains other EF packets in the
queue, the latency of scheduling the EF packet is impacted by the
size of the queue. Moreover, the order of different latency aware
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
flows arriving the EF queue hasn't been considered. Hence the
specific packet scheduling policy in specific network device is
import to the latency performance of the packet.
In summary, the current DiffServ model is not sufficient for the
application that requires guaranteed End-to-End latency. The
problems can be listed as below.
a) Current QoS mechanism like DiffServ is not well defined to
support deterministic latency performance. For example,
relative service level or packet priority can not address the
congestion factor for latency, as well as the congestion
management such as packet scheduling that introduces latency
uncertainty. Current PHBs can only support a few flow
aggregates which are not sufficient for different latency
requirements.
b) There is no user-/device-specific latency performance
specification, or no control plane mechanism to assign user-
/device-specific latency requirement to the network devices
along the path. As a result, network device has no idea how
fast a packet must be forwarded, and cannot adopt a suitable
mechanism (e.g. queue scheduling) to guarantee latency.
c) There is no mechanism supporting the measurement of flow
latency inside of a network device, especially given certain
PHB type and code-points of the flow. Such measurement will
make End-to-End latency more visible, and thus is crucial for
End-to-End latency oriented OAM.
d) Service provisioning (or packet scheduling) policies are not
specified. Packet scheduling policy and queue status are also
key factors of latency and its uncertainty. Therefore packet
scheduling policy must be considered to provide deterministic
latency service for time sensitive flows.
In a nutshell, how to explain the QoS value or how to make sure
the QoS value can be used to guarantee latency performance is not
well defined yet. Some extension to the current QoS model (e.g.
new PHB) could be useful to solve these problems.
3.2. Need of Modeling of Latency
As mentioned in problem section, QoS value or packet priority
cannot guarantee deterministic low latency. In another word, the
same QoS value or priority doesn't guarantee same latency
performance. In network device, various forwarding mechanisms and
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
interfaces introduce different latency that may be linked to the
same priority code. There is still lack of latency performance
information that can be used to provide latency guarantee service.
The principle of Diffserv is focus on providing, describing
differentiated service of traffic flow but not deterministic
latency. Instead, queuing and scheduling, as a main part of
latency and latency uncertainty, is out of DiffServ's major
concern.
PHB provides standard way of modeling of device forwarding
behavior as well as how to handle each traffic flow. However, PHB
description does not include queuing or scheduling information. In
reality, latency is dominated by congestion control scheme, which
is mainly queuing and scheduling in the network device to take
care of multiple traffic flows arriving at the same port
simultaneously.
Therefore, extension to the current QoS model (e.g. new PHB) is
desirable as a standard way to describe the latency performance of
network device. With such standard latency model, network device
is enabled to better manage the forwarding mechanism (e.g. queue
scheduling) for the packet, in order to guarantee End-to-End
latency for the service.
3.3. Need of Measurement of Flow Latency
Flow latency measurement is also very crucial to make sure the
latency bound is not violated and useful for End-to-End latency
aware OAM mechanism. There is a need to support the measurement of
flow latency inside of a network device, especially given certain
PHB type and code-points of the flow.
Existing technologies such as OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357]
is focused on providing one way and two way IP performance metrics.
Latency is one of metrics that can be used for End-to-End
deterministic latency provisioning. Use OWAMP/TWAMP protocols or
extension on that to support measurement of flow latency
performance is feasible.
Overlay based End-to-End latency measurement is another approach
commonly adopted by service providers like CDN vendor. Such
approach can be further enhanced by latency measurement inside
network device, for better service provisioning, e.g. traffic
steering and path selection.
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
4. Latency Information Modeling and Interface Framework
To provide better End-to-End latency guarantee, an extension of
QoS framework is proposed to provide more accurate latency
information of network device. Mechanisms for flow latency
measurement and latency information exchange are also proposed.
This work may introduce new interfaces or extension on existing
interfaces.
4.1. Latency Aware PHB
Latency aware PHB provides latency performance information on
network device with more accurate description on latency bound of
queuing and scheduling mechanisms. In addition to classical PHB
which focus on classifier, marker and shaper/dropper, latency
aware PHB includes queuing and scheduling as well. The latency
factor is mainly introduced by queuing and scheduling algorithm
that handles congestion of multiple traffic flows. Congestion
latency can be up to hundreds of milliseconds regarding buffer
size. Implementations of various queuing, scheduling algorithms,
and QoS policies introduce latency uncertainty. Moreover,
different links cause different latency, as 1GE and 10GE will
certainly cause different latency.
The queue scheduling information model is proposed to describe
latency based service capability and capacity of network nodes. As
the assigned deterministic latency bound must be guaranteed, the
network needs to know what kinds of latency based services can be
provided by a network node for a flow with specific traffic
profile.
For latency based service capability, by referring to DiffServ
design, a differentiated service model called latency slicing
model is defined as follows. A network node provides multiple
classes of latency-bounded services, and if a flow is allocated to
a service class, then all its shaped packets can be sent out from
the network node with waiting time no more than the predefined
latency class bound. Such a latency-bounded service class is
called a latency slice. For example, a network node may have
multiple latency slices with latency bounds of 50us, 100us, 250us,
1ms, etc. Notice that actual max flow latency may vary due to
acceptance of new flows or finish of existing flows, but it will
never exceed the corresponding latency slice bound.
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
The maximum packet length cannot exceed a predefined value called
MaxSDU, otherwise other flows latency requirement may be possibly
violated.
A latency aware flow with specific traffic profile can be accepted
by a latency slice only if the latency of any existing latency
aware flow does not violate the latency bound of its latency slice.
For example, when the traffic profile is defined by the leaky
token model (b, r), two parameters MaxBurst B and MaxRate R
representing the maximum allowable burst size and average rate are
introduced to formulate the latency slice service capacity. In
this case, a new flow can be accepted as long as b<=B and r<=R.
MaxBurst and MaxRate can be adjusted to accommodate more latency
sensitive flows in a particular latency slice, and lead to service
capacity reduction of other latency slice.
By hiding queue scheduling implementation details, the latency
slicing information model is shown in Figure 2.
+--------------+--------------+
| Name | Elements |
+--------------+--------------+
|NodeID | |
+--------------+--------------+
|SliceID | |
+--------------+--------------+
|LatencyBound | |
|--------------+--------------+
|MaxSDU | |
|--------------+--------------+
|MaxRate | |
|--------------+--------------+
|MaxBurst | |
|--------------+--------------+
Figure 2 - Latency Slice Information Model
More detail of this latency Slice information model is under
discussion and will be available in the next version.
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
4.2. Latency Aware Interface
The queuing and scheduling information is typically localized in
the network device. In another word, the current hop has no
knowledge of how the flow was scheduled on last hop. So it is hard
to guarantee End-to-End latency if latency information only
affects locally. Latency performance such as queuing and
scheduling information in network device needs to be exposed for
End-to-End latency guarantee service provisioning.
Basically, more information needs to be exchanged than the current
DiffServ code-points. Existing approach such as [RFC7297] defines
CPP that contains information of connection attributes, latency,
loss, and so on.
With latency performance information defined on previous section,
an interface or mechanism to exchange such information is proposed.
A simple approach can be an interface from network device to
controller, which collects all the latency performance information
of each hop, and then make a decision how to serve the flow at
each hop. In this case, the controller tells each hop how to serve
the flow with queuing, scheduling information that can be
understood by each hop.
The detail of latency aware interface is under discussion and will
be available in the next version.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments
and proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
alphabetical order: Jinchun Xu and Hengjun Zhu.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DLN Framework October 2016
[RFC3393] C. Demichelis, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) ", RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC2474] K. Nichols, "Definition of the Differentiated Services
Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC4656] S. Shalunov, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] K. Hedayat, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October, 2008.
[RFC7279] M. Boucadair, "IP Connectivity Provisioning Profile
(CPP)", RFC 7297, July, 2014.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement]
Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-01 (work in
progress), September 2016.
[I-D.finn-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., and M. Teener, "Deterministic Networking
Architecture", draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-00 (work in
progress), September 2016.
[I-D.liu-dln-use-cases]
Liu, X., "Deterministic Latency Network Use Cases", draft-liu-dln-
use-cases-00 (work in progress), October 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Yiyong Zha
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhayiyong@huawei.com
Zha Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 10]